Quote a single psuedo scientific non sense post thanks.

Projection is the telltale sign of a lack of argument.

No I am very specific with what I object to in regards to your posts, I quote you.

I am sure if you where actually interested in reading other people posts and really trying to understand you could, I think abra is his own solipsistic universe.

...

Bushshidobillyclub,

The above statement is illogical because if Abra was in his own solipsistic universe you would not really exist. You would just be a figment of his imagination. And why on earth would he have imagined you?

Illogical.

Therefore, I have to assume you are being sarcastic and/or just rude.

I think his intention to be rude has been well-established with his insistent that I'm a fool who should wear a jester's hat.

He doesn't understand. He thinks I'm attacking science, but I'm not really. I'm merely poking fun at his claims about science.

Even the greatest scientists are fully aware of the follies of science. Jrbogie has been quoting Stepthen Hawlking for several days down on how Hawlking asserts that there are no such things as facts and that nothing can be proven.

The wisest scientists of all time fully understand that science does the best it can do, but ultimately even that falls short of proving anything.

I've been driving home that point recently myself. I confess that I've been doing it a bit flamboyantly lately. But I did this to try to offset the overly-serious and somber stance that people like Bushio and Creative are attempting to portray in the opposite direction. They are at the other extreme acting like as if science has reality clinched which is far from the case.

I'm fully aware of all the accomplishments of science and I've acknowledged that. I too admire science and the great men who have contributed to it.

But at the same time I see why it should not be worshipped as a religious philosophy. It ultimately fails. Without doubt.

When it gets right down to the real nitty gritty, science fails to explain what's going on. And Quantum Mechanics (the central pillar of Modern Science) has left the door wide-open for many very interesting an potentially mystical explantions.

That is indeed the current status of Modern Science.

The door is wide open! Don't be pretending that it's almost nailed shut. It's not even close to be closed, much less being nailed shut.

WHY??? Why not?

We have bad dreams after all, perhaps I am just a bad dream of abra's . . . lol who knows, it was a jab at abra not really reading or understanding a freakn word me and creative say, and pretty much engineering his own mental construct of our arguments to argue against.

With you its about 50/50, but honestly I have to give you props, you actually try honestly, and sometimes try hard. So does sky, but abra, its all or nothing you agree with him, or you get straw manned, fallacied to death, topic hopping, quote mined, told a long story about the history of physics as if that was the link we needed for his claims to be logical, and then sometimes subtle and not so subtle jabs at our intelligence, our creativity, our maturity, our feelings or his perception of our lack of feelings, its all really pretty chaotic.

He was on my friends list until the science and philosophy forum opened up and he mail ordered some courses and became an overnight professional scientist in every field, oh oh and also philosopher.

Sorry, science is my thing, and I am not going to let someone rub his *** all over it without me objecting.


Where is that quote?

I agree nothing can be proven, only dis-proven, however there are facts, observations are one way to reveal facts. I seriously doubt the man ever said that, and even if he did I really don't care that is fallacy to believe that is a logical argument against our ability to know things.

More straw man, are you saying I worship science as a religion??

sad sad man that needs to do that, that is why I call you a fool.

You have no real argument except new age blather and tired interpretations of weirdness.

The ontology of QM says NOTHING about why its the way it is, or even what type of causality or lack of causality is occurring behind the veil.

You know we have been over this sooooooo many times, and you have never shown me a shred of information, nor made it seem as if you get the distinctions.


Id say rational, and balanced vs your chaotic and emotional response myself.

But yes definitely opposite, that much is VERY clear.

There is definitely some projection going on in here. It is to be expected, in some sense. After all, what is it that most anyone relates to other than unconsciously finding some form of coherence within one's belief(s) and then coming to rest upon that while simultaneuosly adopting that which is not perceived to conflict.

I am deeply disappointed. To look out into the world through the worldy fingerprint which is placed upon each of us, is to accept much less than what can be. As long as one looks through that fingerprint, it will forever remain incorruptible.




Some of the wisest words I've ever read include this framework for conscious thought...




Make your words impeccable.

Never take anything personally.

Don't make assumptions.

Always do your best.

I like that. I try to do that. But I'm not sure what "impeccable" translates to.

http://www.humanpotentialunlimited.com/Summary-content.html

Thanks! Cool!

It 'lines up' well with things you've described...

somewhat dishonest me thinks abra. nudging strawman too. i quoted two sentences of one paragraph on one of hundreds of pages of one of several books that hawkings has published. perhaps you read more from this great mind than i have but where you come to the conclusion that he considers science to be "folly" is beyond me.

That comes down to nothing more than what you personally accept to be folly, now doesn't it?

The first sentence of post was my own personal opinion. All I stated about Hawkling was his assertion from a quote that you had posted. If you disagree that this constitutes a folly then be my guest.

Perhaps too, you are misunderstanding the context in which I'm using the word. This thread is concerned with 'burderns of proof'. Well, if science can never prove anything to be fact, then it would be folly to believe that there should be any 'burdern of proof' on anyone to 'prove' anything scientific.

As some people have recognized science truly only rules things out. Although, even that can be difficult to prove in many cases. In fact, from I can see people make seriously grave mistakes concerning the what they believe to have been ruled out, when in fact there is no reason to rule those particular things out at all.

And doesn't this truly hit right at the heart of the matter?

The main assertion that many people are attempting to wrongfully assert is that there is no need to rule things out. For example, they'll say, "Well, I see no evidence for spirit. So if you want to suggest spirit, then you need to prove that it exists, otherwise I rule it out."

But how ironic is that in light of what has just been discussed?

We've just concluded that science cannot prove anything to be fact, and that all it can be used to do is rule things out, and now people are demanding that we prove something, when in fact, they can't rule it out.

So where does that leave the burden of proof?

What an irony!

I think life is an amusment park. Just look at how silly it is. That should be a hint.

This is the Evidence for Designer thread...

The burden of proof thread has it's own set of issues going on...

Yeh, sometimes people get lost and forget what thread they are in.

k i'll be your guest. i'll consider your opinion as your opinion and not that of hawking. furthermore, i will continue to consider that for you to pass your opinion off as hawking's is intellectually dishonest.

My computer had to go away for a few days but luckily it looks like this topic is dead in the water without me. I'll try not to hold it over anyone n_n
Or that there is no mind. All of existence could be precariously balanced on the lack or realization that it doesn't really exist.

But these lines of thinking are fruitless. Disproving the notions, if that were possible, would gain us nothing and confirming any of these fiction realities would just strand us in the knowing that there was nothing left for us except to delude ourselves and play back into the mystic veil.

Personally I don't care much about these notions of truth. People only ever resort to the possibility of unreality as they backpedal to keep their beliefs practical. The only use for that question is to stall out an argument so I prefer to cut to the heart of the matter and just focus on what we can learn about the world under the assumption that it real.

No matter the belief we assume that we are having real experiences and that that is an important aspect of our reality. As there is no argument there I think we should focus our attention elsewhere.

You just showed that you don't understand. Our designing things has nothing to do with the term intelligent design. It's a lot like how women's suffrage means something very different from suffering women.

I have told you repeatedly that intelligent design does not refer to our designs and I've told you that everyone agrees that we are at least sometimes intelligent and at least sometimes design.

Nobody is telling you otherwise.

You don't know. Your evidence has been considered. It looks something like this:
"Any evidence for the new popular word for a creator god?"
"Ya. Us. We design and are intelligent."
"That's got both of the words in it so it's got two points so far. An intelligent designer would have to be around before us though because we know we weren't always here and intelligent design is really about asking where we came from."

Now I'm sure you think we've discarded your views at this point but that's not the case at all. It is now your responsibility to add to the evidence or come up with some other evidence to the effect of us having always been here somehow or anything else that resolves the problem of how your evidence doesn't seem to explain our origin.

Like how I explained that I ask questions to see what you believe instead of just painting over it with what I believe to fill in gaps it's very important for a believer to do this part of the job.

You can mull about waiting for someone that shares your beliefs if you really want to but there's not really anyone that believes exactly the same thing as you and if they explain it poorly then what you believe looks worse. The reality is that it's up to you and if you don't want to take that responsibility you should stick to saying you only have an opinion and keep out of matters of evidence.

Besides, if you don't have such a shaky faith that you have to justify it to yourself or desperately work to spread it to others (both things you've basically said aren't the case,) why the hell would you need evidence for it in the first place?

Isn't that what it would mean to reject it as evidence?

Thing is we do get it and there are problems you need to address before our considering it any further could possibly show that you've got some full piece of evidence.

We get exactly what you're talking about. We're humans and we have the same inclinations and we work out what we are seeing the same way.

What we don't have is the same set of experiences as you. Instead of waking up in the middle of the night unable to move without any explanation as to why (something you may or may not have experienced,) I have a laptop that doesn't turn on properly half of the time. What I did was recall a solution my friend used of dropping it several times about the distance of 1 inch onto my lap and trying to turn it on again. It worked and I did that for months before I thought about it at a time I wasn't busy and decided to test if that really had anything to do with it.

Turns out it's a lot like a slot machine. Sometimes I win just by trying a few more times and others times it seems like I have to at least tilt the thing while I turn it on but that could just be more superstition eating it's way into my psyche.

Now you probably won't agree that that's the same thing and might not even see how it's relevant but I told that story to show that I believe things without evidence too. Flimsy evidence makes me believe even stronger than solid evidence and I have to constantly remind myself that I work like that if I don't want to let it take control of me.

You haven't shown that you understand these tendencies in yourself and much of what I've said to you have had the second purpose of drawing that understanding out if there was any.

Calling something superstition irrevocably is unfair though so I'm not doing that. You've got a chance to defend what you've said so use it.

I'll stop asking the same question when you answer it for once.

[quot]Your questions clearly shows that you don't even get what I am talking about. You asked:

"What evidence do you have for an intelligent designer before life on Earth?"

You are still talking about a single "designer" supposed to have created life on this earth.Could be several or many but you've got to give evidence that matches that but doesn't match single designer or no designer.

I keep the starting point of the subject small because you haven't shown that you can handle larger.

I know how to do that and I've done it in the past. The thing is there are a lot of ways to rearrange my thinking but only, roughly, one way that will match yours.

I know about a shortcut though. Be vague and shower you with praise as I speak nicely about anything you think.
Quite frankly that's a shltty thing for shltty people to do and I'm treating you like an adult rather than a child. If you'd rather be treated like a child just ask.


The problem is with everyone but you eh?

Show us some of that truth and information please.

Well no, you don't necessarily have any power and if everything you see is an illusion you're basically trapped.

Getting awfully close to the No True Scottsman fallacy...

Organize.

Now what is it that you have done to others?

That doesn't seem to match what we've seen of our existence. Argument from ignorance perhaps?